Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Clear and precise language is fundamental to clear and precise thought. Orwell in “Politics and the English Language” made the point with devastating effectiveness more than a half a century ago.

Politicians, advocates, etc., know this very well. That’s why some species of nuclear missiles are called “Peacekeepers,” unprovoked attacks are called “pre-emptive strikes,” and sneaky Reagan taxes were called “revenue-enchancers.”

I see it now in our use of the word “terrorist” to extinguish all differences between radical militant groups and make it easier for our leaders to avoid nuanced discussion with the public. So we get silly statements such as, “You can’t negotiate with terrorists.” Disregarding the likelihood that negotiating with Al Qaeda is probably pointless, you can negotiate with some militant groups who have used terrorism, such as the IRA and the Basque separatists.

Language and thought are intertwined, obviously.

I know this is a little off the conversation, but i think it is related somehow or another: it seems we liberals might’ve switched places with out conservative counter-parts. Conservatives are creating a country with government-sponsored “welfare programs” while we liberals want to conserve those resources and are now asking that the Iraqi people “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.”

Think about it, now that the reason for Iraq is creating democracy and making people’s lives better, how else can we look it? We are supporting people and infrastructure for the good of the people there, and we’ve created a viscous cycle of dependance. The question now is how to break that cycle?

I could understand all this if the people of Iraq had asked us to intervene and help create a world more free for them. But they didn’t. So, the people setting up these programs have had to resort to creative naming of programs and results to make them feel more like what we had hoped the Iraq people would see them as. Iraqi Freedom! I think it’s simply human nature to make things sound and feel better, even if that’s contradictory to reality. Remember, the supporters of Iraqi welfare have never liked the idea of welfare, so you have to spin a little to help gain buy in.

The people in charge know that most of the supporters must discuss these on going events at church and social events, and very few people can talk about such violent deaths easily… but collateral damage sounds so much more… analytical and unavoidable. Hey, it’s the cost of freedom, right?

I read this and it’s amazing to me. All you are saying is exactly what the Administration has been saying from the beginning. When the new Iraqi government is capable of securing itself, we will leave. We do not want to keep 135,000 troops there indefinitely.

Right now the Iraqi brigades and police in control of 50% of the country and that number will keep growing.

If the goal of the terorists in Iraq was only to end the occupation, all they would have to do is go underground act like it’s over for a few months and wait until we leave. Unfortunately that’s not what they want. They don’t want us to leave they want us there so that they can point to us as their problem. Iraq with it’s own government is what they don’t want.

Keith-
Not exactly. Bush’s people are taking a position of staying the course. They’ve set up no timetable, claiming the insurgents and the terrorists would take advantage of such advanced warning. As of right now, our stay in Iraq is indefinite. We don’t know if the withdrawal begins tomorrow or towards the end of Bush’s term. We also don’t know if Iraq is capable of surviving our withdrawal.

All this vagueness makes it difficult to determine whether Bush’s intent is to stall with nice words about our people standing down when these people stand up, or whether anything’s really happening.

The big question here is why we’re still at the same basic troop levels as before, if the Iraqis are taking on their roles well. The process needs a good kick in the seat of the pants to get it going. America is telling the president we need to start leaving.

Do you know when we’ll start leaving? If you can’t tell me that, then you can’t say that Bush is doing what I’m suggesting yet.

An additional point: The guerrilas probably couldn’t do what you describe and maintain their presence. If they aren’t out there doing visible things, if their presence isn’t causing havoc, then Iraq will get back to normal, and all the things that would better immunize Iraq against further insurgency would set in. These people want more than us out of Iraq, they want themselves in control, and the longer the situation goes on with them in charge and not the police or the army, the more they will be in charge.

These are not selfless freedom fighters here, these are people with their own agenda.

Also, fifty percent control is not that big a deal if it doesn’t included the big population centers. I think one could have control of more than fifty percent of American territory without taking hold of the vital city centers.

Stephen,

The questions should be:

Is it the correct foreign policy to let the world know what we are planning to do with specific information about our timetables?

Should our military moves be made public prior to them happening?

Are we targeting terrorists or just where terrorist hang out?

Cliff-
Just because we’re telling people that we’re going doesn’t mean we have to tell them everything. We can publicize general details and goals. Operational details can remain under wraps.

Ultimately, it would not be a bad thing for our enemies to see America withdrawing. If we set up the framework and the treaties right, we should be able to say, basically, we’re now more free to bash any idiot who decides to threaten us or our allies (which, if we play our cards right, should include Iraq).

The Timetable should be set up so that Iraq will have the strength at each phase of the withdrawal to do without the soldiers we are removing. Additionally, the situation in Iraq should be sufficiently under control as to allow us the freedom to do these things without endangering the survival of the country.

As for terrorists and insurgents? We would target and defend against any force that would get in the way of our carrying out our goals. It’s of critical importance that we put full force and dedication into each phase of this withdrawal. I think that should include any temporary reinforcements necessary in order to get the job done.

The secrecy you suggest should not be necessary if we have been doing as well as Bush suggests. If we haven’t, the timetable should be encouragement for him to get off his ass and get things working.

Something else, something puzzling occurs to me: why complain now about timetables when he’s been setting them up all along? He’s set them for handover of sovereignty, for a number of elections and other things. I would think that maybe Bush’s problem is that he’s too concerned with the nominal, superfical side of timetables, and not enough in the effort, resources, and managerial push it takes to make such things work.

Now, though, things aren’t so simple. The insurgency has shot the glass, and like John “McLane in Die Hard we’re running across that, trying save Iraq, save civilians, and fight a war in their very backyards all at once. The armchair generals whose formative experience was the political aftermath of Vietnam, though, are refighting the war, trying to make a virtue of our perseverating and procrastinating in this conflict with Bush’s strategy.”

Lenin stated America would fall without a shot. In my college days I thought was ridiculous but not anymore. I am fully convinced that the reason this war has followed this path of difficulty resides right here at home. Many of our politicians are more concerned with political posturing than supporting our nation. Don’t think for a moment our enemy is not energized and encouraged when they see such division in America.

We can bark all day long that it is our right, our responsibility and our duty to call out the President over this conflict. It may be, but such division has consequences on this war and the cost of that division is more lives. Anyone that would think otherwise is only fooling themselves. Freedom is not free and has responsibilities.

Bush has no choice in this strategy since his political enemies count every body and use it to their political advantage. I agree, fighting this war with an attempt at limited casualities is a mistake, but I would never announce this to the world to reinvigorate the enemy.

So, pious democrats of the anti-war party, take a look in the miirror….you have become a part of the problem not the solution.

Curmudgeon-at-large-
Second-guessing what will invigorate the terrorists is a waste of time. It serves more as emotional blackmail in the service of selfish politics than it ever has served to safeguard soldiers lives.

Among the dissents it has been used against has been the insufficient armoring of troops and the lowballing of manpower. The rhetoric serves to do is protect policy that has underarmored frontline vehicles, left many soldiers without body armor, consistently maintained lower troop numbers than what was needed for the mission, and has been powerless to halt the escalation of daily violence in Iraq, much less roll it back.

This policy has aided in the creation and continuation of the threat in Iraq. Forget emboldening the terrorists, Bush’s policy enabled their reign of terror to exist in the first place.

Stephen:

“If we have lost, the lesson we should draw is that those who do not prepare the battlefield properly for the war are bound to lose it, and those who hide the realities of war behind politics and pretty words do that war a great disfavor. We will win by understanding things for what they are, not by building elaborate fantasies about what we are doing in the war we’re fighting.”

The first casualty of war is truth.

Stephen, I can’t help but believe that you think that this Iraq caper could have been a rousing success if only, if only… (you fill in the blank). If I may, I suspect that some of the answers might be: We needed 250K troops to keep the peace, the administration needed to be straight with the American people about goals, how this policy fit in to fighting terrorists, seeing that in March of 2003, the only terrorist in Iraq was Saddam.

What this “if only” thinking is predicated on is honorable intentions by the Bush administration, that this Iraq policy is governed by a rational, reasoned debate within the administration that furthers American geopolitical goals that is not at the expense of soverign nations or innocent lives. Problem is, every time the curtain has slipped, and we see the machinations of this policy (Downing Street memo, Niger uranium, non-existant WMD, the total inability to rebuild a functioning infrastructure that is crippled by no-bid contracts and downright graft), we see a seamy, stinking sewage of lies. Predicated on more lies. And the whole mess is spinning out of control, and the Baghdad morgue is doing a booming business, with 90% of all corpses showing a violent end.

“Hiding the realities of war behind politics and pretty words do that war a great disfavor.” The trouble is, if war isn’t couched as such, you’ll never get the nation to back it. Hence, truth indeed, is the first casualty of war.

I rather believe that anything that does
this war a disfavor, is doing all men and women of good will a favor—be they Americans or Iraqis.

Stephen,

Bush’s policy enabled their reign of terror to exist in the first place.

This makes you sound like a leftist wacko…Was this your intent?

Cliff-
Bush’s policy did enable it. He’s no Palpatine, playing both sides of the war, if you think that’s what I mean. He’s just an incompetent leader whose military planners failed to anticipate the need for an occupation. Read George Packer’s The Assassins’ Gate For more on that.

Additionally, I’m sure the average reader can judge from the fact that I do not call for immediate withdrawal and/or abandonment of war efforts cold turkey, that I in fact try to lay out a strategy for victory and the means to judge our progress that I am no member of the far left, much less a wacko.

The Republicans and others on the right need corrective lenses if every Democrat and liberal they see skews to the far left in their sight.

Cliff,

No he simply discredited himself.

Stephen,

Speculating on what invigorates the terrorist is not opinion or a waste of time, its part of combat analysis. The fact that you blew that off leads me to belive you are doing nothing more than cut-n-pasting Howard Dean rhetoric.
I will go out on a limb and predict that they eat, drink and sleep as well. Take all these things away….so will they.

Tim Crow-
My views on the war are not built on any faith in the Bush administration’s ability to fight a war. I think I’ve demonstrated quite a number of times how much I believe they’re capable of that on their own.

I believe a failed state in Iraq is a problem that crosses party lines, and that if we don’t do our best to prevent that process of collapse from fulfilling itself, we will pay for it dearly. Arguments about what we did to get into this war will be useful in informing how we get into and stay out of future wars, but right now, we should also be concerne about how we get out of this one without making things much worse than they already are.

curmudgeon-
Discredited myself? No, not in the view of many military strategists. Cliff misinterpreted me, at best, and what I actually said is consensus among many military experts, including the ones in the Army College who anticipated the problems of insurgency.

Speculating on the enemy’s mindset is a necessary part of war, but not the way you’re doing it. They way you’re doing it is essentially taking any Democrat or liberal proposal on the war and saying that it emboldens the terrorists. It’s an argument from fear, not from any valid logic. Maybe for a moment or two, the terrorist is invigorated. But wouldn’t that be a small price to pay for the creation of a strategy that wipes the smile off his face? I will not tiptoe around controversial subjects for a terrorists sake so we can continue to engage in policies that embolden terrorists by failing to defeat them.

“Speculating on the enemy’s mindset is a necessary part of war, but not the way you’re doing it. They way you’re doing it is essentially taking any Democrat or liberal proposal on the war and saying that it emboldens the terrorists. It’s an argument from fear, not from any valid logic. Maybe for a moment or two, the terrorist is invigorated. But wouldn’t that be a small price to pay for the creation of a strategy that wipes the smile off his face? I will not tiptoe around controversial subjects for a terrorists sake so we can continue to engage in policies that embolden terrorists by failing to defeat them.”

Well said.

Stephen:

“Arguments about what we did to get into this war will be useful in informing how we get into and stay out of future wars, but right now, we should also be concerned about how we get out of this one without making things much worse than they already are.”

Okay. What do you suggest?

Tim-
The article has my basic suggestions. Truth is, we’re better off with Iraq than we were with Vietnam, because most Iraqis have an interest in Iraq remaining free, independent, and able to stand up to enemies in the region.

So, we motivate them by saying that if they want it, nows the time to get things in gear, and that we will put our full efforts behind getting them in gear, provided they recognize that our presence will diminish, and that theirs has to make up for that. It also gives them hope of independence of us.

It motivates us as well, gives us a goal to work towards. The limitations of the commitment, and the matters at stake can serve to reinvigorate our own troops, and reenergize the country’s approach to the war. If we know it’s going to be over soon, and that a certain amount of effort will see our plans through, we’re more likely to do that than if we had no plan and things just seemed to stretch into the dismal, indefinite future. I’m sure Americans would respond positively to the notion that the war might be over soon. It would solidify support behind military efforts to end this war, and might help to end the pointless partisanship that has soaked the process.

As a strategy, it encourages less of the political hemming and hawing by the generals, and more practical, strategical thinking.

Bush’s approach forces things into a hazy twilight zone of uncertainty, which makes setting goals and other useful measurements extremely difficult If we are to come out of this war with our best foot forward, we got to break out of that.

Tim, here is my take on what needs to be done if America wants to combat terrorism. Btw, I hate the term “War on Terror” — it’s a bullsh*t term that implies that we will one day “win” once and for all, and that terrorism will dissappear and be a thing of the past. That isn’t going to happen. Other nations have been dealing with terrorism for a very long time, and we’d all better get used to this new chapter in our history, without becoming scared rabbits, or completely doing away with our strong belief in our Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

Anyway here are my suggestions:

1. Get out of Iraq. I don’t give a damn if this is called “cut and run” or not — it’s the only sensible thing to do. Because it is GROWING terrorists, and it is training them to fight our troops. It is also spending all our money, indeed, it is spending money we don’t even have. Additionally, it is a distraction from what truly engdangers American lives most — terrorism on our own soil.
Let the Iraqi’s have their civil war — if they’d wanted something else, they’d have already stepped up to the plate en mass and would have been well engaged in the process of securing the peace by now. But that’s obviously not what they’ve wanted. They want their sectarian strife and civil war — so let’s let them have it. It’s not our job to solve all their problems while this ancient tribal sh*t is going on. When they’re done fighting amongst themselves and the violence goes down, we can offer them help with humanitarian aid and with reconstruction. Until then, as Murtha has known for quite some time, over the horizon is where our troops belong.

2. Homeland Security. Should we be surprised that liquid bombs were going to be used on airplanes? NO. Because Al Qaeda already took that idea for a test-drive previously. Yet, our Homeland Security dept. hasn’t done anything about that particular threat before now. They’re doing “a heck of a job”, aren’t they? Now that they’ve got the message about liquid bombs, they might also start focusing on our cargo containers too. They’re spending tens of billions of our taxdollars — I’d love for someone to tell me on WHAT. Why haven’t they put the 9/11 Commissions recommendations into effect? There is NO EXCUSE for them being allowed to overlook glaringly obvious threats while they continue to spend our money like it’s water.

3.. As the British have just shown us, old school law enforcement is what stops terrorism. Contrary to what the idiots in the Whitehouse believe, it isn’t military invasions and occupations. Surveillance operations (lawfully conducted of course), detective work, using human sources, cooperation with foreign intelligence services and their law enforcement agencies — these are things that clearly work. Furthermore, we must not always assume that terrorists will automatically come from foreign soil. Timothy McVeigh and the London subway bombers should have already alerted us to the fact that home grown terrorists are entirely probable as well.

4. Foreign Diplomacy. We need some desperately. They only way we will ever get co-operation regarding terrorist threats to our country is for us to become the good guys once again and engage the world diplomatically. We will also get more co-operation by giving aid to foreign countries where it is most needed. Such as how we scored some major points with Indonesia after the Tsnami. Providing assistance to nations who need help with clean water treatment and technology is yet another way we could score many points all over the world — and it wouldn’t even cost us that much.

So, those are my thoughts. If anyone wants to add to them, please feel free.

Stephen:

“I’m sure Americans would respond positively to the notion that the war might be over soon.”

I’m sure they would—provided that it were true, and that message was delivered by someone they could believe. Who would that be, at this point?

“It would solidify support behind military efforts to end this war, and might help to end the pointless partisanship that has soaked the process.”

This is a major difference in your thinking and mine. I do not see any legitimate conventional military effort ending this war. Ever. I also don’t think partisanship is pointless when it challenges insane policy. I, for one, do not find partisanship to be a dirty word. I do find partisan tactics of calling legitimate concerns and challenges regarding Iraqi policy ‘aiding al- Qaeda and the terrorists’ a dangerous political ploy that further alienates American voters.

At some point, the Bush administration needed to evolve from election mode to governance mode—they have never made that leap. Iraq is part and parcel of that lack of governance. ‘Stay the course’ isn’t a policy. It’s a campaign slogan. It doesn’t elucidate goals, it doesn’t define policy.

If I were in a room alone with President Bush for an hour, I would ask him this question.

“Why did the United States invade Iraq?”

If he mentioned the words: 9/11, terrorism, democracy, liberty, freedom, self-determination,
self defense, Saddam, geo-political, Iran, GWOT, American interests, stability, military, shock and awe, WMD, bio-terrorism, I would know he was lying. Because one word would be missing.

Oil.

As for your concern about leaving behind a failed state and this fact creating a problem for the United States in the future: the fate of Iraq is no longer in our hands. There is nothing the United States can do at this point to ameliorate or lessen a descent into chaos, if that is where the Iraqis themselves choose to go. This inability to recognize this very simple fact is the ultimate hubris of American thinking. That, by the very nature of who we are, we can influence events for the better, make things work, spreading democracy, freedom and good feelings as far as our reach can reach. And, the most intolerable thing about such hubris? We can’t even see that the whole world has become sick unto death of us.

This is a sobering thought, and it is one that pundits, government officials, senators and congressmen, military officials, policy wonks and think-tank consultants, not to mention the average American sold on the divine destiny of America, will spend the next how ever many months and years it takes to realize we can’t fix it.

Not militarily, not politically, not financially. It is out of our hands now. I think we had a three to six month window to truly influence the situation, to hit the ground running, to rebuild infrastructure, to impress the Iraqi in the street with our organization, our technology, our money. And we failed. Miserably.

The statue of Liberty shouldn’t have “Send me your tired, your poor….” It should have this:

“I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

Adrienne:

Not surprisingly, we agree. I think point three is especially significant, and flies in the face of having an army of 135k in the middle of a civil war—unless, of course, as I suspect, it was about putting an American ‘police station’ in the middle of all that oil so we could dictate it’s usage by the rest of the world.

Adrienne, I think you have a very clear vision of what needs to be done. Now how can we get the deciders doing it?
I still believe we were there for the oil and that is why such an elaborate military base has been built over there and the reason we are not leaving.Until some way has been fixed to get a share of their oil our guys stay.I have had 3 nephews over and they all said that base was built to stay operating permanently.Just like we have in every country we have ever fought in.

I got a trivial question. It seems to me that regardless of what we do or don’t do in the middle east there are always those who claim that it is because of oil.

Can someone explain to me what we can do there without a faction believing that oil is the only if not the primary reason for it?

Tim Crow,

You threw out the “O” word without an explanation.
This conflict is not about oil. If all we wanted was Saddam’s oil, he would have sold us as much as we wanted for a lot less then what the conflict is or will cost.

It’s easy to throw out oil, Halliburton the evil neocons and all the rest of the bumber sticker logic, it’s another thing to make a case for it.

Keith:

“It’s easy to throw out oil, Halliburton the evil neocons and all the rest of the bumber sticker logic, it’s another thing to make a case for it. “

Actually, it’s very easy to ‘make a case for it.’ That is where the largest deposits of known oil are. A continued presence in the Iraq and the Middle East is a way of hedging our bets, insuring that whoever runs Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, whether friendly to our bidding or not, will be looking at US troops that are a day away from their collective front door step.

Other evidence supporting my point about the ‘o’ word, is the very fact of who we don’t invade, and where we don’t have troops. Who we verbally castigate, and who we ignore. Who we try to overthrow and who we don’t. If you prefer to ignore evidence, fine. Other people around here are more discerning.

As for your Halliburton, evil neo-con comments, I see you agree with me.

Frustration:

“Can someone explain to me what we can do there without a faction believing that oil is the only if not the primary reason for it?”

I guess the short answer to your question is, “Nothing”. There will always be a ‘faction’ that will question the government’s motives at this point.

But I believe there are reasons for this. Part of it is in my answer to my post to Keith. Behavior is in large part an answer. Under the caption of behavior, is the failure of the United States to make real strides towards energy independence. This failure certainly goes beyond any particular recalcitrance on the Bush administration’s part. But I do not believe that it is coincidence that this administration is full of oil men, and that energy policy in the last five years has done nothing to lessen our dependence on oil. Their solution to oil dependence? We’ll find more. Perhaps. But there are a number of petroleum geologists and even oil executives who are privately concerned about peak oil.

Make no mistake—the Bush administration is well aware of scientific evidence that peak oil may be here, and in fact, may have already occurred. What does a great nation do when facing such educated predictions? It secures the known resources as quickly as it can. Methods are secondary.

It is also necessary to remind people that Bush has eight years to influence policy, to get the sappling to grow in a certain direction. Perhaps longer, if conservative methods of ‘stacking the deck’ of government through shady electoral methods and gerrymandering are successful. If the sappling grows into a tree that leans in a certain way, foreign policy-wise, the intent to change that policy may take years to change. And cutting down the tree becomes very unattractive.

Thus, do ideas and programs like the electoral college, a two-party system, a military-industrial-complex, US military bases the world over, ‘free market capitalism’ and supply-side economics become irreversable, even comforting, despite the fact, that,in some instances, they flat-out don’t work for the good of the whole nation.

Adrienne, you ever consider running for any political office? I’d vote for you.

Tim-
I suggest you, too, read George Packer’s The Assassins Gate. Iraq is not a totally lost cause. As far as the military response goes, I’m of the mind that if we don’t pull out properly, it will go from bad to worse. I don’t hold out much hope for Iraq being without serious problems for the next few decades, but I think we can choose varying degrees of smoothness in our withdrawal. We owe it to ourselves and the people of Iraq not to give up on repairing the damage we inflicted.

Stephen:

Understood. I will make a note of your suggestion, and thanks for bringing it to my attention.

“Adrienne, you ever consider running for any political office? I’d vote for you.”

What a neat idea! You have my vote.

As far as oil goes, I think you oversimplify the matter. Oil in part is the reason why we began to care about much of what went on in the Middle East, and for good reason: It’s a strategic and economic resource we can’t do without. From there, though, the story complicates, and other factors, including Israel, which has nothing to do with oil, play their part.

You have to factor in these other things. The take-over of colonial interests from the former great powers. The Shah and how his rise and fall related to communism. Israel and our interests in protecting it. Iran, Syria, and terrorism. 9/11, the Saudis, and their Wahhabi evangelism. The third front in the Cold War and the complications that engendered with how policy was constructed.

Looking at all this and merely saying no blood for oil is misunderstanding how much blood could be spilled for lack of a supply, or for that supply in the wrong hands. It’s not the noblest reason to go to war, but sometimes, its sufficient. On the matter of the Iraq war, though, I don’t think it was involved too heavily. I think a case can be made that the Neocons engagement in this war has been more about the cold war, about a philsophy of confronting evil, rather that being concerned about balances of power or peace at all costs, and about the end of that cold war that left these people with the desire to find some new dragons to slay. There position is more about their conviction that the rest of us are dangerously naive about the threats of the real world, and that they can’t wait for the rest of us to get around to dealing with the bad guys.

Stephan: The rise and fall of the Shah? Iran was attempting to nationaize their oil industry. That was called communism. Imagine the nerve of a country wanting to control their own resources.

The idea that the Iraq war was about anything other than oil is mistaken. It was not about terrorism,iminent threat,WMDs,or democracy. We will not leave until the oil supply is secured or untenable under any circumstance. That supply may not come to the US but it will be secure from China. Plans within plans.
I do have a small glimmer of hope in the fact that sometimes wars do change their own rational. The US civil war did not start out to free the slaves but the cost was so great that a noble purpose had to arize.
The Kurds are likely to break off from the rest of Iraq.

Stephen:

“[Oil]It’s not the noblest reason to go to war, but sometimes, its sufficient.”

Of course.

“[Oil]It’s a strategic and economic resource we can’t do without.”

Nothing simpler than that. By the way, I’m not one of these blood-for-oil types. I just believe we ought to be a little more honest in our motives, that’s all.

“I think a case can be made that the Neocons engagement in this war… is about a philsophy of confronting evil…and about the end of [the] cold war that left these people with the desire to find some new dragons to slay.”

Undoubtedly. The decline of the Soviet Union definitely left a dangerous void to be filled, a bogey man that would keep the war engine greased and humming. Who would have thought the American people would buy the threat of some raggedy-ass Islamic malcontents after facing down the Soviets and their nuclear threat for over forty years.

“There position is more about their conviction that the rest of us are dangerously naive about the threats of the real world, and that they can’t wait for the rest of us to get around to dealing with the bad guys.”

Well, personally, they have me convinced. I believe it is high time the nation confronts this evil. It is obvious that the American people have been extremely naive about the threat facing the nation, the Constitution, the economy, the rule of law. I hear there’s an election coming up—perhaps this evil will be dealt with, once and for all, with a rickety, compromised and corrupted electoral system that defies belief. Because it is clear to me, that the neocons threat to this nation dwarfs anything, ANYTHING, some gutter rat terrorist could think up.

Isn’t life funny?

“They way you’re doing it is essentially taking any Democrat or liberal proposal on the war and saying that it emboldens the terrorists. It’s an argument from fear, not from any valid logic.”

What is the democrat proposal for this war? I have yet to hear one outside of generalities and at this point gnersalities are useless. I seriously would listen but if it is anything like Adrienne’s no thanks.

Adrienne,

Couple of problems with your plan.

“Foreign Diplomacy. We need some desperately.”

1. Diplomacy does not work when those you attempt to consort with are in the hip pocket of the enemy. See the UN for a great example. As well, don’t think the Terrorist organizations are interested in diplomacy. They are bent on jihad. Americans need to get the point that terrorist do not think in terms of logic.

“As the British have just shown us, old school law enforcement is what stops terrorism.”

2. British police forces are able to operate on “suspicision”. A large step above probable cause. Obviously, this would make them much more effectuive and responsive. They also do not need a warrant. Are you willing to go there?

“Get out of Iraq. I don’t give a damn if this is called “cut and run†or not — it’s the only sensible thing to do.”

3. And turn it over to Iran so that they can turn it into a terrorist state? Nice plan. The only sensible plan is to go in and win and stop with the limited warfare. More die in the short run but in the long run lives will be saved.

BillS:

“Imagine the nerve of a country wanting to control their own resources.”

Hard to believe, isn’t it? Well, the CIA showed them, by golly. Mess with our oil…[mutter mutter].

Stephan: Part of your piece remined me of a line from Catch-22 when Yossarian said,” The enemy is whoever is trying to get you killed.”

What is so bad about a divided Iraq anyway? Its current border was drawn up by Churchill after WW1. These colonial borders do not seem to last ie. N. and S. Vietnam.

Curm: Not very likely that Iraq ever becomes part Of Iran though their influence there will increase no matter what we do. For one thing the Iranians are NOT Arabs. Secondly there is much mutual hatred between them from their war. Probably the only thing that could bring them together is a common enemy,us for example.

curmudgeon-
When has the right given specifics. Cite some examples to illustrate this point.

On Adrienne’s points:
1) Diplomacy worked with Qaddafi, whose agents blew up Pan Am 103. Why shouldn’t it work with the European powers, and some of the friendlier Arab countries? (for more on this, read Ron Suskind’s The One Percent Doctrine Doing foreign policy, especially counterterrorism, without talking to people, is like trying to run a business without talking to your suppliers and your customers. It simply doesn’t work Such rigid-mindedness like this is why we need a change of the guard in our government.

2)Actually, they have broader powers, but they have to be much more strict about what they do because of that. Some in the British Law Enforcement sector were concerned about the timing of the arrests for that reason.

Moreover, the brits are used to that, and it fits their society. Americans quite obviously live under a different system, we should adapt our approaches accordingly.

3)We don’t win this war until Iraq is rebuilt enough to survive without us. The more that is put off, The more the terrorists and radicals win. It may be cathartic to our anger to go ballistic in Iraq, but it works counter to our aims to have it actually work after we’re gone.

BillS-
The trouble is that the lines of old demarcation have blurred, if they were ever clear to begin with. The ottoman empire is dead, and resurrecting its old provinces is not likely to succeed, as the old order’s been dead for ages. groups have intermarried, loyalties have become mixed.

Trent, Tim, thanks! If I was wealthier and had more time, I might consider running for political office. Since I’m not, I guess I’ll just stick to being a politically active worker bee, persistantly buzzing in the ears of my representatives at every opportunity. ;^)

Susieq:
“Adrienne, I think you have a very clear vision of what needs to be done.”

Thanks. I appreciate that.

“how can we get the deciders doing it?”

I think Americans voting out the Republican rubberstampers in Congress this November would probably be a good place to start.

“Until some way has been fixed to get a share of their oil our guys stay.”

If no change is affected after this election, I fear you’re right, Susie.

“I have had 3 nephews over”

Whoa, that must’ve been rough on your whole family, huh?

“and they all said that base was built to stay operating permanently.”

Yeah. The Neocons thought Iraq was going to be so easy, but despite the horrific quagmire it became, they still went ahead with the plans they’ve had for years — building permanent bases to use as a jumping off points for all the other wars they want to start in the Middle East.

“Just like we have in every country we have ever fought in.”

Indeed. All on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex. Nobody listened to Eisenhower’s warning:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Curmudgeon:
“What is the democrat proposal for this war? I have yet to hear one outside of generalities and at this point gnersalities are useless.”

Hilarious. Like “Stay the Course” is a treatise on the direction of the war!

“I seriously would listen but if it is anything like Adrienne’s no thanks.”

Oh, so I guess you think the DHS is doing a “heck of a job”, eh? You and all the other Bushies want to “stay” that “course” too?

“Adrienne,
Couple of problems with your plan.”

And everything is wrong with your Dear Leaders plan. The part where a nuclear bomb could be detonated from an unchecked cargo container near one of our major cities is really worrisome to “Traitorous Cut ‘n’ Runners” such as myself.

“Diplomacy does not work when those you attempt to consort with are in the hip pocket of the enemy.”

Oh, you mean like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

“As well, don’t think the Terrorist organizations are interested in diplomacy.”

So you think we should just turn the whole Middle East into Iraq? Hey, wait a second, is THAT what “Stay the Course” is actually code for? And here I just thought it was mindless, jingoistic sloganeering for the Fox News crowd.

“They are bent on jihad. Americans need to get the point that terrorist do not think in terms of logic.”

This is truly illogical thinking. Terrorists may have a lot of screws loose, but they’re far from stupid people — hence my suggestions to use the tens of billions the DHS gets, as well as the 257 million we’re spending in Iraq per day, to secure this country.

“British police forces are able to operate on “suspicisionâ€. A large step above probable cause. Obviously, this would make them much more effectuive and responsive. They also do not need a warrant. Are you willing to go there?”

No. Because we don’t need to. Our methods of intelligence gathering and surveillance can work just as effectively without discarding our Constitution, or our FISA laws.

“And turn it over to Iran so that they can turn it into a terrorist state? Nice plan.”

Hate to break it to you, but it’s already a terrorist state. Bush staying this course gave it to us.

“The only sensible plan is to go in and win and stop with the limited warfare. More die in the short run but in the long run lives will be saved.”

Hogwash. We’ve been there over three years and the violence has only continued to grow and escalate in intensity. Now, there is civil war breaking out in earnest. Time to get our troops the hell out of there and let the Iraqi’s shape their own future.

For those of you who constantly harp about our “oil” interests in Iraq and elsewhere—-

Something for you to think about.

I am not saying that I think we ARE or ARE NOT involved in Iraq because of oil. I do not personally believe so…but admittedly I do not know for sure. Putting all that aside for a moment, consider this.

During the first Gulf War, whenever I heard people make many of the same comments or criticisms about our “oil” involvement as I have heard here, I said the same thing I will say now.

—If you think that we should not make any political, military or economic decisions that are motivated by our need for or desire to acquire oil, I say the following:

Stop using ANY AND ALL PRODUCTS made with oil, made from oil, which use oil in any part of the manufacturing process, or which are shipped or tranported in any vehicle or vessel which burns oil for fuel or has parts lubricated with oil.

This means:
1) Removing ANY AND ALL plastic items or anything which contains plastic from your home.

This includes things like the washer, dryer, refrigerator and freezer, and the stove and microwave oven (all with multiple plastic parts); your clock radio or alarm clock, your toothbrush, the toilet paper roll, the toilet seat, all of the parts of the toilet which make it flush; the TV, radios, tape players, CD players, VCR’s and DVD players, and the VCR tapes, DVD’s, CD’s and cassettes tapes that go in them, and the remotes which control them; the blinds on your windows; your sewing machine; your fishing poles; your tool box and many of the tools in it; your computer and the many peripheral attachments that accomnpany it; your telephone and answering machine; all of your medicines and the bottles they come in; your personal care products and the bottles they come in; any footwear or belts or purses which are not 100% leather; furniture with plastic handles or plastic parts; your car!!! And many hundreds and thousands of other items.

2) Remove ANY AND ALL items which are manufactured in a factory which uses oil for fuel, or which uses oil for lubricating the machines which make the products.

This includes all of the above mentioned items, as well as anything else you could name.

3) Remove ANY AND ALL items you own which were transported on vessels or vehicles which burns gas or diesel, or have parts lubricated with oil.

For those of you who say “I don’t own a car…I ride a bicycle”, remember that the bike not only contains plastic parts (#1 above), but was manufactured in a factory on machines which have plastic parts and which are lubricated with oil based lubricants (#2 above), but was also transported to the store where you bought it by truck (gas, oil), and maybe also by boat from overseas (diesel, oil). Indeed, every single product and food item you buy, even those which were made or grown locally, were transported to the store or market where you bought them by vehicles using gas or diesel for fuel.

So, how much “involvement” with oil should we have?

I don’t know whether we went to war for oil. I certainly hope we did not. But regardless, if any of you out there think that we cannot or should not make economic or political decisions with our need for oil in mind, you need to take a good, close look at your lifestyle and your own home and possessions, and then re-assess your position on oil.

Regardless of how “off the grid” you might live, or how oil independent you might think you are, we are ALL dependent on oil and oil based products and processes for our daily existence.

You might not like it, but oil is a VERY important part of our world.

DaveR

I watched the 60 minutes interview with Ahmadinejad (well, as much as I could stand)and have been watching several interviews with anti neo-cons. I think regularly about the Bush position of non-diplomacy and the costs of war. Ahmadinejad has valid points and lots of B.S.

Bush has a valid point. We are not in a war against terror any more than we are in a war against car bombs. We are in a war against Fundamentalist Islam. The Ironic part is that we fomented much of this movement by installing and supporting the Shah of Iran, supporting the House of Saud, and Intervening in Pakistan, abandoning them, and then supporting a millitary dictator there. The Islamists want to remove the infidels from their lands.

Once again we find ourselves fighting anti- Imperialist forces in a foreign country and region. Collateral damage is one of those words that hides the terror and carnage of war. War is brutality. War is death and destruction. The bombing of Dresden was supposedly to bomb ball bearing factories. Bull, it was to inflict terror on the German people . The cute new propoganda is to talk about precision weapons. They do not exist. A surgeon’s knife is precise, a bomb is by definition not precise. It sears flesh and shreds bodies.

Oil is a vital resource. We burn it for cheap energy. We could be building energy independant housing. It is possible today in much of America.
It would be costly in dollars. We have chosen to blow up people in foreign lands who resist our claim to this cheap energy source. We could produce plastics with US sources or even develop plastic production through biologic or coal oils. We choose to fund a military that projects our power through killing foreign populations that don’t go along. We killed off the Native Americans to possess their land.

Who is the terrorist? We’re not evil anymore than any other people, but to believe the lie that we are innocents attacked by an axis of evil is naive. What and who pays the cost of cheap energy?
Is our national policy where we want it to be?

gergle—and others—

-“The Ironic part is that we fomented much of this movement by installing and supporting the Shah of Iran, supporting the House of Saud, and Intervening in Pakistan, abandoning them, and then supporting a millitary dictator there. The Islamists want to remove the infidels from their lands.”

Bullsh-t!! That is the same lame bunch of excuses that you libs always fall back on when trying to “understand” and rationalize the actions of radical terrorist a—holes…that we alone created the problem of Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism, and that we alone are responsible for people hating us, and if we would only leave their “lands” (sniffle sniffle) they would happily leave us alone! What a crock!!

I have read numerous passages from translations of the Koran…Islam teaches that the true believer must kill the infidels. Islam doesn’t teach tolerance…it teaches hate and the destruction of ones “enemies”, the infidels, whoever and whereever they may be.

For crying out loud people…this is a religioin that teaches that your wife is your property, and infidels (especially Jews) are descended from pigs and other animals, therefore not deserving of consideration as human beings!!!! There have even been Islamic leaders on Arab TV who have come right out and said this!!!

The Imams and other radical religious leaders of the Arab world take this many steps further by claiming that WE are the “Infidel” (with a capitol “I”) and as such the sole reason for the sad and miserable circumstances that the world, especially the Arab world, finds itself in. Furthermore, they VERY OFTEN make impassioned speeches where they advocate not only the killing of westerners, but indeed the goal of one day ruling the entire world under the religious banner of Islam!! They don’t just want us “out of their lands”, they want us all DEAD or converted to Islam!!

Go to www.memri.org, the website of the Middle Eastern Media Research Institute, and see for yourself. This organization reprints written articles, and records video and audio broadcasts of speeches, interviews, and even “teaching” sessions, by so-called “leaders” of the radical Islamic world, and makes them available for all to see for themselves the truth of what these people want.

THEY WANT US DEAD!! Period. The sooner you open your eyes and see this, and admit it, the sooner you will be able to acknowledge that these excuses are just that…excuses!! They seek nothing less than the deliberate and systematic elimination of anyone and everyone who disagrees with radical Islam or the tenets thereof, or who refuses to accept it as their religion. You libs always wail and bemoan the power and influenece of the religious right in THIS country, and the creation of a “theocracy” in this country…
radical Islam is the epitome of the feared religious right, and you do nothing but make excuses and garner support for their cause!!

Why do you continually make excuses for their behavior…for the killing of innocent women and children in indiscriminate car bombings and hijackings…for the kidnapping, torture, beheading and murder of civilians, news journalists, reporters, and soldiers…for the wanton slaughter of thousands of men, women and children of a [slightly] different version of Islam (Sunni vs Shiite)? Why do you condone their use of violence against those who are different from them, while preaching to the rest of us about how violence isn’t the answer to our problems?

The “civil” war in Iraq isn’t our fault…it wasn’t created by us…it exists because those former Baathists and other slimeballs who were in power under Saddam want that power back, and they are willing to kill American soldiers and their own fellow citizens alike in an effort to get it back!!

Many of you say that we should leave Iraq and tell the Iraqis to stand-up and take charge. Is that what we told the Vietnamese when we abandoned them? How long does it take to prepare a people to take charge of their own country after a vile, vicious, murdering dictator is overthrown and they have their freedonm for the first time in decades? How long is long enough for them to be ready? Who will you libs blame when we leave them and they fall on their collective faces? Who will THEY blame? Probably us…then that will give you all more ammunition to find fault with the Republicans and Bush and anyone who supported the war.

One thing is for sure…if we leave now and the Iraqis fail, you “cut and run” liberals certainly won’t take the blame…you will look for some way to make it someone else’s fault. That is what you are best at, shirking responsibility.

DaveR

-“Oil is a vital resource. We burn it for cheap energy. We could be building energy independant housing. It is possible today in much of America.
It would be costly in dollars. We have chosen to blow up people in foreign lands who resist our claim to this cheap energy source. We could produce plastics with US sources or even develop plastic production through biologic or coal oils.”

This is of course based on your assumption that we went to war for oil. Prove it. I for one don’t buy that claim. You libs constantly clamor for “proof” of WMDs…support your claim that we went to war for cheap oil.

And since when is it the government’s job to “build energy independent housing”? That is YOUR responsibility when you buy a house…not their’s. You can choose to have solar panels put in, install geothermal water heating, erect a windmill for electricity. It is not the role of the government to do that for you. Stop depending on the government to do for you what you can and should do for yourself.

“We choose to fund a military that projects our power through killing foreign populations that don’t go along.”

Yep…that is what we do…just go about wantonly killing anyone who doesn’t give us what we want. Just like we have wiped out the Japanese for their cheap electronics, and the Italians for their fast sporty cars, and the Germans for their delicious beer. Because when we want something we just go out and TAKE IT and GOD help you if you stand in our way!!! What a ridiculous claim. Why do you libs hate your country so bad?

-“We killed off the Native Americans to possess their land.”

Maybe so, but since none of those people who are guilty of that are alive today, it has absolutely NO BEARING on this discussion. What’s past is past and can’t be changed now anyway, so what’s the point of bringing that up? Feeling a little collective liberal guilt?

I like the line from the movie “Last of the Dogmen” where the professor says to the cowboy, re: the Indian situation “What happened was INEVITABLE…the way it happened was unconscionable” [my emphasis]. And may I remind you…the Indians stole from each other and killed each other for horses, land, food and other less noble things all the time. That was a part of their life. Our white ancestors did nothing more or less to the Indians than they did to one another.

Speaking of that, I am tired of being made to feel like I have to defend myself against the constant attacks against my race.

The white race isn’t the only one by any stretch who have committed “atrocities” against other races. And I refuse to feel guilt or take responsibility for the actions of people who were born and died long before I ever came into this world. I have never killed or scalped an Indian, never lynched a black man, and never locked up a Japanese. I never owned slaves and neither did my ancestors, and I refuse to be held accountable for those who did. I didn’t kill the Indians and take their land. I am sorry it happened the way it did, but it’s over and now we all have to live with it and move on. I don’t even own land myself so I cannot give back what doesn’t belong to me. Stop trying to make me feel guilty for what someone else did 200 years ago.

I am not ashamed that I am white…I have nothing to be ashamed of. I personally am not guilty of harming anyone (and that is all you could reasonably hold me responsibile for), and I refuse to be made the scapegoat of your misplaced liberal guilt trip for things I had no control over.

DaveR

Great posts Tim Crow. Keep it up.

Because it is clear to me, that the neocons threat to this nation dwarfs anything, ANYTHING, some gutter rat terrorist could think up.

Isn’t life funny?

Well said Tim Crow.

I’d like to add that the philosophy of the neocons and those found in Project for the New American Century reveal why the neo-cons have been referred to as “fucking crazies”.

They pose a greater threat to innocent civilians in the middle east and American soldiers than they do to America at large but it clear that in the long term their policies over over-stretching the American military and economic machine will ultimately break that engine. They have ruined America diplomatically and damaged the good will felt towards the US by rest of the world. In short they are hastening the decline of the American empire. This may or may not be a bad thing for the rest of the world (a multi-polar world might be better) but then who knows who the next superpower will be (China is a likely candidate) and I prefer the devil I know…a new devil will have a lot of new lessons to learn and there may be quite a few wars before the devil learns them.

Wise words from Adrienne also.

Can’t vote for you Adrienne (I’m not American) I qualified to practice there but I don’t want to live in the US (I love home too much, NY is too hectic to be my scene, should’a qualified in California really). It is apparent that the US needs clear-headed intelligent politicians, who actually have a moral compass (sadly lacking for some) so don’t rule yourself out.

Dave R,

The fact that you interpret my statement of collective responsibility for the actions of our government as some reason for you to be ashamed of your race reveals your bigotry.

I also stated that we (meaning all Americans, not any particular race) are no more evil than any other people, but since that doesn’t fit into your bigotted idea, you neatly avoid that part of my post.

I once had a literature techer that pointed out, as we read greek tragedies, that the human condition of foibles hasn’t changed since the times that these were written

What I hate is ignorance, we are an aggressive warrior nation and we all benefit from it, including me. We did kill Japanese in WWII, not for cheap electronics, but to stop their dominance of the East.

That you did not own slaves or scalp Native Americans can also be turned to state you did not earn your freedom fighting in the revolution.

If you do not think we are invloved in middle east politics for oil, I suggest you renounce your use of these products to demonstrate your lack of guilt. I’m curious what you think won WWII.
Did it have nahting to do with oil?

I made no comments about the government sponsoring energy independent housing, but since you brought it up, why should my taxes fund tax breaks for oil companies?

The point I was trying to make, beyond the point that we are in a war against Islamic Fundamentalists, which came from President Bush and since even he acknowledges there were no WMD, was that it is our national policy that has led us to this war and contiues to lead us into this fight. It isn’t an attempt to bestow guilt upon whitey, but an attempt to recognize a behavior that is resulting in a lot of dead people from those unterrifying precision bombs.

Blaming the Quran is like blaming the Bible for killing the Native Americans.

correction on 6th paragraph: Did it have anything to do with oil?

Dave R,

Outstanding post. Bring the noise my friend, I may just vote for you.

Adrienne,

Your points remain moot. You provided no plan except to criticze the current plan. That is not construtive and is the basis of the DNC plan at the moment….nothing. Instead of hammering at “Stay the course”, provide something better. I know I have.

Irag is not a terrorist state to the extent it WILL be if we leave and Iran gains control and they WILL gain control. We are all that is stopping that. Obviously, those consequences are not clear to you. The vast majority of Iraq is stable for that matter. Thats a fact. I will not even begin to list the multiple failures in diplomacy with these people. They are not interested in diplomacy the WANT jihad.

As far as the British, (to quote the great John McEnroe: “You can not be serious”. Do you actually belive that the ability to searh and seize only on suspicision and without a warrant is not much more effective than our current system we employ? Ask some of your local authorities. You seriously under estimate British Intelligence. It is outstanding at the very least on par with the US. I ask again “Willing to employ those tactics?”.

“This is truly illogical thinking. Terrorists may have a lot of screws loose, but they’re far from stupid people”

Adrienne, you are still thinking in Western terms. Jihad is not stupid to muslim extremist. Jihad is the most NOBLE of causes and brings great reward. They are pleasing Allah and for them, there is no greater reward. They ARE NOT afraid of death and often welcom it.

DaveR,

It is truly a pity that your sense of history doesn’t match your lack of guilt.

Look at it this way;

If an airline loses your luggage, the attendant behind the counter isn’t actually responsible, however the airline he/she works for is.

America has done some great things, and I am sure you feel pride for that.
America has also done some mighty stupid things, but you can surely brush that off without any responsibility at all.

The people that point out America’s faults don’t hate America, we just wish folks like you could recognize them and learn not to ignore them when you take pride in America’s accomplishments.

abhcoide:
“Great posts Tim Crow. Keep it up.”

Definitely. I’ll second that.

“Wise words from Adrienne also.”

Thanks very much.

“Can’t vote for you Adrienne (I’m not American) I qualified to practice there but I don’t want to live in the US (I love home too much, NY is too hectic to be my scene, should’a qualified in California really).”

If you ever decide to try, I’d strongly suggest Northern California, specifically the San Francisco Bay Area (where I live). The beauty of this area is almost as lovely as Ireland, and there are a huge number of Irish ex-pats that you could always rub elbows with if you found yourself missing your fellow countrymen and women.

“It is apparent that the US needs clear-headed intelligent politicians, who actually have a moral compass (sadly lacking for some) so don’t rule yourself out.”

Again, thank you! That’s very kind of you to say.
Btw, I grew up hearing (Scots) gaelic due to my relatives, but the for the past few years, an Irish friend of mine has been conversing with me in the Irish (the two forms share many similarities, but can often be very different), so I’m curious about your blog tag — are you a lawyer? Abhcoide is advocate, or barrister, correct? I’m just going to assume that it doesn’t mean your very fond of avocados! ;^)

Curmudge:
“Your points remain moot. You provided no plan except to criticze the current plan. That is not construtive and is the basis of the DNC plan at the moment….nothing. Instead of hammering at “Stay the courseâ€, provide something better. I know I have.”

Democrats vary in their approach to plans and solutions for getting out of Iraq — but all agree we need to find a way to do so. As I mentioned in my first post in this thread, I believe that Rep. Murtha is right, and that our troops have needed to leave and maintain an over the horizon position in Kuwait. I agree with Senator Feingold’s position that we need to set a date for that withdraw. And even though I don’t agree with her very often, I agreed with Senator Clinton’s recent remarks to Rumsfeld. Indeed I am deeply disgusted that Rummy hasn’t been fired — this should have happened ages ago.
I must criticize the Republican’s current plan — because there is really none to speak of, and clearly they aren’t searching for one. Indeed, “stay the course” is now a catchphrase for clueless, incompetent, and totally ineffective in the face of utter chaos.

“Irag is not a terrorist state to the extent it WILL be if we leave and Iran gains control and they WILL gain control. We are all that is stopping that. Obviously, those consequences are not clear to you. The vast majority of Iraq is stable for that matter. That’s a fact.”

Iraq was not a terrorist state when we illegally invaded it, but it has become one while we’ve been there. What makes you think we can do anything about that at the moment? Like I said before, they want their civil war, and nothing we can do right now is going to stop it from taking place. All we are currently doing is trying delay that inevitability, meanwhile, we are illegal and unwanted occupiers of their country — one that all factions are using for target practice. This is a completely ridiculous an horribly unfair position to put our troops into — and damn it, they deserve more respect and better leadship that what they’re getting. It’s also costing us a fortune, and no progress is being made for the Iraqi people. No. Iraq needs to have their civil war since they want it more than peace. Period. After the sectarian violence abates, American troops in that over the horizon position, might be forced to intervene (hopefully with the help of our allies) if or when, Iran makes an attempt to take over. And when that civil war is over, then we can help the Iraqi’s with humanitarian aid and reconstruction.

“I will not even begin to list the multiple failures in diplomacy with these people. They are not interested in diplomacy the WANT jihad.”

Bushco has made no direct attempts at diplomacy with Iran. In fact, they have weakened this country with their overall failure to engage other countries diplomatically. Jihad be damned. An effort should always be made, rather than talk tough but do nothing to shape world events. It is an embarrassment and a disgrace. Just as they have put us into a weakened position with this assinine talk of “when the Iraqi’s stand up we’ll stand down.” A weak, ineffective, and passive stance, that — allowing the Iraqi’s to dictate what America can and will do.
It’s bullsh*t. Time to tell the Iraqi’s to either get their peacekeeping sh*t together, or they’re on their own until their civil war is over.

As far as the British, (to quote the great John McEnroe: “You can not be seriousâ€. Do you actually belive that the ability to searh and seize only on suspicision and without a warrant is not much more effective than our current system we employ? Ask some of your local authorities.”

We have FISA laws. These give more than enough latitude to get the job done. Ignoring the FISA laws because Bush thinks their too much trouble is an un-American outrage of epic proportions.

“You seriously under estimate British Intelligence. It is outstanding at the very least on par with the US.”

No. It is more effective than ours because they’ve been dealing with terrorism far longer than we have. It is also more well managed than ours, because they’re gathering their intelligence in accordance with their own laws, rather than break them because they think it’s too much trouble to comply with them.

“I ask again “Willing to employ those tactics?â€.

No. I want us to follow the good example the British have set. Learn as much as we can about Middle Eastern cultures. Focus on homeland security. Gather intelligence in accordance with our laws.

I wrote:
“This is truly illogical thinking. Terrorists may have a lot of screws loose, but they’re far from stupid peopleâ€

curmudge:
“Adrienne, you are still thinking in Western terms. Jihad is not stupid to muslim extremist.”

I didn’t say that. I meant that while Islamic extremism and terrorism are crazy, the people who are focused on jihad aren’t stupid or illogical when it comes to planning their attacks. We have to learn to think the way that they do, and prepare for the worst attacks they might inflict upon our people, not simply write these people all off as illogical.

abhcoide and Adrienne:

“Well said Tim Crow.”

Thank you for your kind words.

I think one of the things that people never (or rarely) consider about this Iraq situation: the amount of verbage, intellectual energy, emotion and preoccupation this policy has wrought.

I think of all the elements of our lives that have been usurped by this war: the money, these lives, the human creativity lost and squandered, the mental energy and emotion wasted, human kindness and understanding ignored and frittered away, the natural resources defiled and damaged. It boggles the mind. I am tired of spending so much of my waking hours thinking, writing, and talking about this war.

Three hundred and fifty billion dollars. Twenty-six hundred Americans, fifty to one hundred thousand Iraqis. These are the things we can count, these are the consequences we are aware of.
What have we lost that is not apparent? What has slipped away that we haven’t noticed, that quietly got up in the middle of the night and left, and never spoke a word? Our humanity? Simple human kindness? Our empathy? Our sense of self? Our belief in each other?

What is the real cost, when we barely have a tenuous hold on our own humanity?

This is not a war against Fundamentalist Islam or even Radical Islam. Our efforts are to supress the threat of catastrophic violence from groups who use their religion as a license to attack us. People can believe what they want in this world, and there’s not much we can do to stop them. Efforts to combat religious movements, as the Romans and Arabs of Ancient Arabia can tell you, often end up building the stature and popularity of religions.

It’s the belligerence we have to head off. There are plenty of countries around the world whose beliefs we don’t like. That’s not a sufficient condition for war, though. It is a sufficient condition for other actions, though. We should defend ourselves when attack, and otherwise engage in programs of diplomatic and economic pressure and incentives to stop engaging in inhumane and unjust behavior. It is the motivation to attack us that we must confront and frustrate.

DaveR-
You can understand what somebody does, and why they do it without becoming passive in the face of it. As of yet, I have yet to rationalize their actions. I consider them wrong, and believe that most every Liberal here does, too.

Now I’ve stated that the things we do, the mistakes we make can contribute to motivating people to oppose us, but that’s not two wrongs making a right for them. That’s just understanding the consequences of your actions.

Islam is not one solid cohesive religion, no more than Christianity is, and it’s holy book is no more politically correct than ours. I’d be cautious about quotations, because people quote out of context, and out of mistranslated texts. They also confuse the Hadith, which is neither uniformly authoritative, nor considered as divinely inspired as the Quran.

History proves that Islam is not a fundamentally intolerant religion. Many Jewish, Orthodox, and Catholic communities existed long into the twentieth century as part of their culture. The Quran teaches much more tolerance than you think it does.

That is not to say that religious figures throughout the ages have not abused its text or misinterpreted it from good intentions. But we are no angels as a culture with that. Our political correctness on the matter is fairly young.

Truth of the matter is, things are great deal more complicated than you think.

Stephen,

Of course you are right in saying it is not religion that attacks us, and I am no authority on Islam. I was watching an authority on Islam on C-span recently who was talking about the differences between a broad view and a narrow vision of Islam. The narrow vision that Bin Laden and the Wahabi’s are teaching with literal interpretations of the Quran does advocate violence against infidels.

I agree that those that use religion to spread hate and violence are not, in my mind anyway, the classic definiton of religious persons, just manipulators. Classic Islam is oriented towards very peaceful and harmonious living, as I understand it.

I do think a fundamentalist form of Islam has become widespread in the Middle East and Indonesia and is being used by propogandists to deflect frustration and anger in the masses toward a hatred of the West. We have of course helped this along with bigoted and cavalier policies that consider only our immediate needs for oil and economic gain.

The only point I was trying to make is that there is a hatred by many of Westerners in the Middle East and that is that movement we should be fighting. The stupidity of the nation building in Iraq is that we are fomenting more hatred. The sad part is that many of us were skeptical that it probably wouldn’t work. Saying we are fighting terror is nonsense. Carnage and terror is what war is all about…on both sides. If I lived in Iraq or South Lebanon, I’d be pretty terrified right now.

Thanks for the post on the euphemisms, I agree wholeheartedly.

DaveR: Another way to look at is ,would we be in Iraq if there were no oil there? Clearly not. Iraq would be a poor country exporting dates and goat meat. Tourism would be the biggest source of forign income. Oil is the basis for every part of mid-east governance nearly always sustaining despots. We have a hand in this and have for a long time.

Rocky—

-“It is truly a pity that your sense of history doesn’t match your lack of guilt. Look at it this way; If an airline loses your luggage, the attendant behind the counter isn’t actually responsible, however the airline he/she works for is. America has done some great things, and I am sure you feel pride for that. America has also done some mighty stupid things, but you can surely brush that off without any responsibility at all. The people that point out America’s faults don’t hate America, we just wish folks like you could recognize them and learn not to ignore them when you take pride in America’s accomplishments.”

What the hell are you talking about? Your analogy doesn’t hold water. Here’s why.

1) If an airline lost my luggage, I wouldn’t blame the lady behind the counter, because I know it isn’t her fault. I wouldn’t even blame the airline at large. I would blame the people WORKING for the airline who don’t have the common sense or ability to properly read the name tags. I would blame the airline for hiring incompetent people and/or improperly training the people who lost the luggage.

2) The lady behind the counter, the luggage handlers and the airline itself are in the HERE AND NOW!! They are in the present, handling my luggage in the present, and they are directly responsibile for the actions that they undertake.

Our ancestors, OTOH, are dead. They did what they did decades ago, even centuries ago. It is past, it is over, and I personally do not have the ability to change what happened. I did not participate in what happened. I neither condoned nor supported what happened 200 years ago, because I was not there. No reasonable person can hold me or anyone alive TODAY responsible for the actions of people who are dead and gone, and I do not feel like I have to be held accountable for their actions or apologize for them. That is what you guilt ridden apologist liberal whiners don’t get. You want us all to feel bad about sh-t which we didn’t do and for which we cannot do anything about.

I DIDN’T DO IT AND I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR IT…MY “GOVERNMENT” DIDN’T DO IT BECAUSE “MY” GOVERNMENT IS THE PEOPLE I HELPED ELECT, NOT THE PEOPLE FROM 200 YEARS AGO WHO ARE LONG DEAD AND GONE!!!!!

The SYSTEM of government we have is not what is responsible for what happened in the past, the people who were serving in it are responsible.
SO how can you logically hold me and the rest of modern society responsible for the actions of people 200 years ago? That doesn’t even make sense.

It is not my fault and I refuse to be held liable for decisions for which I had no input, just as I would refuse to be held liable for decisions YOU make which result in problems for you and the people around you. I DIDN’T DO IT!!! Get that through your thick head!!

As for the accomplishments of our society and our government, of course I am proud of them. I am also not so dumb as to take repsponsibility for the actions of the past because again I was not there. But I would take pride in the actions of “my” government…the government that I helped elect or the one in which I had an active part in…the one in the here and now…the one in which I had some direct input. I can take pride in and shame in the leaders I helped elect. The government is NOT some all powerful entity existing seperate from the peoople in it.

I can also take pride in the accomplishments of the past as they were done by the people who did them. I CAN take pride in the accomplishments of the past through the ability of my fellow citizens from long ago to elect good leaders, and the ability of those leaders to make good decsions, without having directly participated in either.

The PEOPLE in the “government” make the decisions….the “system” doesn’t differentiate between good and bad, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal. The “government” is not the problem, the people in it are the problem.

But you and your liberal cronies see the system as the problem. You seek to change the system, rather than EX-change the people. The system isn’t the problem, and you are foolish if you cannot see the difference between the two.

That is why I do not take responsibility for the actions and misdeeds of the past…BECAUSE I WASN’T THERE!!! Get it now???

DaveR

Stephen—

-“Islam is not one solid cohesive religion, no more than Christianity is, and it’s holy book is no more politically correct than ours…..That is not to say that religious figures throughout the ages have not abused its text…”

I totally understand that, and is in fact one of the points I was trying to make. That is why I use terms such as “extremists” and “radical Islam” when I write, because I understand that the extremists of Islam, just as extremists in any religion (including those in Christianity, one of the libs favorite whipping boys), seldom represent the mainstream members of that religion. But one problem I see, which was brought to light clearly today (8/15/06) in the speeches and comments made by Muslims around the world in response to President Bush recent speech, is that the Islamic faithful themselves refuse to acknowledge that there are extremists in their own midst who are doing the Muslim religion great harm by misrepresenting it to the world. Bush didn’t make a blanket statement about Islam, but to hear these angry people who were screaming bloody hell today, you would think he did.

The same holds true for me. I know that the vast mojority of Muslims probably want nothing more than to live in peace and harmony with their neighbors, but they are overshadowed by the deeds of their radical brethren who use Islam as a tool to justify the killing of innocent men, women and children all over the world. They (the mainstream Muslim community) need to admit to their (radical Muslim extremists) existence, recognize their threat, and stop sheltering them and do all they can to help the rest of the world eliminate them, once and for all.

-“…or misinterpreted it from good intentions. But we are no angels as a culture with that. Our political correctness on the matter is fairly young.”

I am not denying this either. But again, this proves my point (which I have tried to make in this forum before) that there are extremists in every culture and every religion, and one cannot judge the mainstream by those examples of radicalism whose voices always tend to be the loudest. That goes for Christianity too…a lesson which the anti-religious zealots on the liberal side of the fence would do well to learn and acknowledge.

DaveR

gergle—

-“The fact that you interpret my statement of collective responsibility for the actions of our government as some reason for you to be ashamed of your race reveals your bigotry.”

How exactly do you get that I am a bigot because I refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of dead people? Some of you liberals have perfected the ability to twist a conservatives words to make us fit whatever nasty stereotype you want. How you can POSSIBLY see anything I wrote as being indicative of being a bigot is beyond me! What a stretch.

As for the “…actions of our government…” bit, see my post to Rocky.

-“I also stated that we (meaning all Americans, not any particular race) are no more evil than any other people, but since that doesn’t fit into your bigotted idea, you neatly avoid that part of my post.”

Again, how do you get that I am a bigot from that?

-“What I hate is ignorance, we are an aggressive warrior nation and we all benefit from it, including me. We did kill Japanese in WWII, not for cheap electronics, but to stop their dominance of the East.”

Yeah, Einstein I know…I was obviously (or maybe not so obviously since you didn’t seem to get it) being sarcastic…I wasn’t even referring to actual events, Slick! (Talk about not being able to interpret someone’s comments properly).

-“That you did not own slaves or scalp Native Americans can also be turned to state you did not earn your freedom fighting in the revolution.”

I never said I fought in the revolution. Again, where do you get that from?

You make stuff up…to make a counter-arguement…against things I never said!!!

I am totally indebted to my ancestors for freeing us from English rule. I never once made the claim that I had anything to do with that.

-“If you do not think we are invloved in middle east politics for oil, I suggest you renounce your use of these products to demonstrate your lack of guilt. I’m curious what you think won WWII. Did it have nahting to do with oil?”

Once again, where do you come up with this observation”?

And how, EXACTLY, does ME renouncing MY use of oil products demonstrate my lack of guilt…guilt for WHAT? I have no guilt. I use oil products, and I don’t have a problem with that. I would happily support and utilize any new technology which comes along to replace oil, so long as it doesn’t harm my family or our life.

I am sure it was clear to everyone BUT YOU…that I was saying that if anyone does in fact have guilt for using oil based products, and doesn’t support our efforts to secure oil for our use, then THEY might want to get rid of all THEIR oil based products, before they jump on the anti-oil bandwagon and start preaching to the rest of us.

(Did you actually read my post, or did someone paraphrase it for you? They did a horrible job).

-“I made no comments about the government sponsoring energy independent housing, but since you brought it up, why should my taxes fund tax breaks for oil companies?”

You implied it through your comment that “Oil is a vital resource. We burn it for cheap energy. We could be building energy independant housing. It is possible today in much of America.”

You say “we” burn oil for cheap energy…is that society as a whole? That’s how I take that comment. But then you say “we” could build energy independent housing. Again, I took that to mean society as a whole (hence, the implication that it is up to “the government”).

If, however, you meant that each individual could build energy independent housing, then maybe you should seperate the societal “we” from the individual “we”. In that you would be correct…”we” (individuals) could build energy independent housing…and “we” (individuals) will do so if we decide to. That is a choice each homeonwer must make for themselves. “We” as a society do not get to make that choice.

-“The point I was trying to make, beyond the point that we are in a war against Islamic Fundamentalists, which came from President Bush and since even he acknowledges there were no WMD, was that it is our national policy that has led us to this war and contiues to lead us into this fight. It isn’t an attempt to bestow guilt upon whitey, but an attempt to recognize a behavior that is resulting in a lot of dead people from those unterrifying precision bombs.”

Yeah well, people die in war. At one time in the not so distant past, war was waged not only against troops in the field, but also against civilian population centers. The concept of avoiding “civilian” casualties is a fairly new one.

And I am sorry, but regardless of whether there were actually WMD’s or not, Saddam had to go. Of course I am not happy that we might have been misled into waging this war. But it still achieved something very important…getting rid of Saddam. Even if the Iraqis don’t like us, even if they continue to fight amongst themselves when we are gone, getting rid of Saddam was only a good thing for them, no matter how you look at it. Getting rid of a torturing, murdering raping dictator and his scumbag clones some people would call them his sons), can only EVER be a good thing.

Furthermore…I had a Microbiology professor at University of Idaho who was actually a member of one of the inspection teams a few years ago, looking for evidence of WMD’s or facilities to make them. Guess what…!!! They found facilities, ready and waiting to be activated and start making chemical and biological agents. He had the pictures to prove it!! So what makes you think that if Saddam had the facilities, that he didn’t already have the agents??? And how does having the facilities to make the stuff NOT qualify as having WMD’s?

I would submit that having the ABILITY to make NBC agents is close enough. I don’t want to wait until he actually has something to deal with it.

Kinda funny too, how you liberals are all over Bush for not doing anything about Iran in their attempts to get a nuke…but they don’t actually have one yet. SO how can we do anything? Isn’t that what your arguement against the war in Iraq is…that it wasn’t justified because he didn’t have WMD’s? So Iran having the desire to get a nuke is justification enough to do something, but Saddam having the desire to have WMD’s is NOT!!!??? WOW!!! That logic boggles the mind.

-“Blaming the Quran is like blaming the Bible for killing the Native Americans.”

I don’t blame the Quran…I merely mentioned that it does in fact call for the killing of one’s infidel enemies. That fact is not in question…one has only to read it for oneself. It also says that your wife is your property, and that infidels are descended from pigs. Again, I have read the translated verses online…I even took the time to access several different translations so I could verify that they were correct. There is no question that this as what they say.

I fully realize that terrorism as practiced by radical Muslims is fueled by clerics and Imams who choose to take these words literaly, and twist them to mean that it is God’s will to take innocent life in some misguided “Jihad” against the west and Jews. This doesn’t change the fact that the words are there.

DaveR

curmudgeon—

Thanks…I guess? Are we both on the same page? LOL

DaveR

Dave R,

“Islam doesn’t teach tolerance…it teaches hate and the destruction of ones “enemiesâ€, the infidels, whoever and whereever they may be.”

“For crying out loud people…this is a religioin that teaches that your wife is your property, and infidels (especially Jews) are descended from pigs and other animals, therefore not deserving of consideration as human beings!!!! There have even been Islamic leaders on Arab TV who have come right out and said this!!!”

If the above statements don’t smack of bigotry to you, then I give you a bigot. Your understanding of Islam is something to wonder at. Christianity also teaches that slavery is O.K., killing heathens is just and women are to be treated like children. Yet, you conveniently don’t mention these things. You don’t mention the Christians who want to bring on Armageddon because we are near the “end time” or that Hurricane Katrina is a punishment from God. Why do you single out Islam?

I don’t disagree that Fundamental Islam is being used to build hatred of the west.

Why do you think we have a right to Middle East Oil?

Why should we subsidize oil companies?

Why is it less costly to kill American soldiers than become energy independant?

I want to thank you for all your pejorative terms for me, it emphasizes the lack of sensible argument you can muster as well as your rage at the imagined attacks on your myopic self image.

As to ridding the world of Sadamm, which liberal said the world was worse off for that? How many more soldiers should die to rid the world of the rest of the tyrants in the world? Why do you think we are the policeman of the world?

What justifies your pride in American government and your lack of a critical eye for it? You vehemently deny any association with it’s misbehavior and then wallow in it’s good qualities. That kind of provincialism is bigotry in and of itself. It might be fine at the backyard barbeque, but the world finds it moronic.

DaveR-
You have to be careful about the Quran. First and foremost, many websites post passages of Hadith (writings about sayings of the Prophet Muhammed related second hand) interchangeably with those of the Quran. This is a problem because the Hadith is considered secondary, subsidiary, and depending on the source highly variable in dependability. Others post rather unsympathetic translations which misrepresent what is said, and fail to provide context for the verses in question. The Apes and Swine passage which is sometimes bandied about depict God’s punishment of Sabbath-breakers.

It’s good to keep in mind that our New Testament is often critical about Jews and Jewish tradition, and they in return. The Scriptures employed in Judaism themselves are relentlessly self-critical. Their error, though, is not depicted as distinct from the rest of humanity’s.

Liberals are not unaware of things here. The Right has simmered for so long in the juices of its own partisanship that it unfortunately takes seriously what was only propaganda before: that the liberals are going to destroy the country, and have to be fought at every turn.

It’s really getting tiresome, especially with all the spectacular screwups going on with the Republicans. I don’t subscribe to the opinion that Neocons or the Republicans are going to destroy America, but I do think that their actions could spell a decline in American power, which means we would have to fight for what we take for granted now: economic competitiveness, international power, military power sufficient to discourage our enemies. We Democrats and Liberals are generally for preserving America’s advantages.

I know one thing. To do that, people must be at ease with us. That is why I think we should take the emphasis off of saying that this is a fight against radical Islam, and instead focus on the threat they pose to our homes, our families, and our lives. We have to make it clear that this is not some imposition of what we desire of their religion, because that provides those very people the ammunition they need to say that we are fighting against them on religious terms. The more we build the dialogue on their behavior, the more we can aid the portrayal of them as the irresponsible actors provoking conflict and discord. Which they are.

Truth is, there are a world of people who do things, say things, and believe things we would find unconscionable. It’s only when that becomes a threat to us, or to international order do we have good call to attack, and only in terms of the real threat it poses.

It doesn’t matter what your professor friend found years ago. It matters what we found in the aftermath of the war. It was a pre-emptive war, which meant two things: our justification was built on the presence of an immediate threat, and our credibility rode on the line with what we would find and not find. The war was sold to the American public on disarming Saddam. They would not have gone if they knew he had been disarmed already.

Hey Adrienne, just heading back to work now.

I love California (have been twice). My first choice would be San Fransisco…I like Santa Barbara too (v. beautiful) but too small. On a rainy day in Dublin…it’s a nice thought.

Of course there’s no place like home. Since I returned from a year in London i’ve been calling Ireland the “auld sod” in hopelessly sentimental way - I’m sure my friends are sick of that one…it’s good to be back! Here’s to being in California for a summer sometime soon, it’s been raining here all week.

Stephen—

“It doesn’t matter what your professor